[brainout]

I'm hoping Acer.com will see this post. I've been trying to get enough information to actually buy the Acer Travelmate 8573-9627 from some vendor, since it offers dual-hotload of Windows 7 Professional in either 32-bit or 64-bit, which the USER gets to choose when he gets the machine. So I keep writing vendors to see if they allow this, or whether they force 64-bit on me when I get the machine from them. So far, I either get no answer from the vendor, or get the answer that they FORCE the 64-bit configuration, so I can't change it back to 32-bit.

So, I wanted to go see if I could buy it directly from Acer, and make the choice myself when I get the machine from them. But you can't write Acer unless you are writing about a machine you already own. They have the worst website imaginable, no good way to compare models, no good way to get information, took me MONTHS to figure out the specs of the 8573 by tooling around the internet and their badly-designed website.

So how is someone going to learn enough to buy their product, and solve a problem like this one, if there is no way to contact Acer? So guess what? They just lost me as a customer, even though I adore my old Acer Aspire One I bought in 2008.

This is why PC sales are sluggish. Too hard to learn the specs, too hard to get information, too hard to go through their too-many models that are usually poorly configured, too hard to get answers, too hard to buy.

I'll just go get a no-name made from scratch, now. Dell's website is hard to use, so too ASUS, and Acer is even worse. Basta.

This post has been edited by brainout: 24 October 2012 - 04:22 PM

[smax013]

brainout, on 24 October 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

I'm hoping Acer.com will see this post. I've been trying to get enough information to actually buy the Acer Travelmate 8573-9627 from some vendor, since it offers dual-hotload of Windows 7 Professional in either 32-bit or 64-bit, which the USER gets to choose when he gets the machine. So I keep writing vendors to see if they allow this, or whether they force 64-bit on me when I get the machine from them. So far, I either get no answer from the vendor, or get the answer that they FORCE the 64-bit configuration, so I can't change it back to 32-bit.

So, I wanted to go see if I could buy it directly from Acer, and make the choice myself when I get the machine from them. But you can't write Acer unless you are writing about a machine you already own. They have the worst website imaginable, no good way to compare models, no good way to get information, took me MONTHS to figure out the specs of the 8573 by tooling around the internet and their badly-designed website.

So how is someone going to learn enough to buy their product, and solve a problem like this one, if there is no way to contact Acer? So guess what? They just lost me as a customer, even though I adore my old Acer Aspire One I bought in 2008.

This is why PC sales are sluggish. Too hard to learn the specs, too hard to get information, too hard to go through their too-many models that are usually poorly configured, too hard to get answers, too hard to buy.

I'll just go get a no-name made from scratch, now. Dell's website is hard to use, so too ASUS, and Acer is even worse. Basta.

How about the "Acer Store" phone number: 1-800-910-2237

From the bottom of the page here: http://us-store.acer.com/default.aspx

FWIW, looking through the web version of the "Acer Store", it does not appear that they offer the model you want. By looking selecting that model number (TravelMater 8573), I only get a power supply listing...no listing for purchasing a computer itself.

BTW, are you sure "dual hotload OS" means what you think it means? This forum seems to imply that it just means that you get dual language versions installed and get to pick which language you want (i.e. rather than a separate model/SKU for English and French, both are available and you pick when you first boot it up): http://forums.ncix.c....php?id=1484617 I found at least one other link that suggested the same.

Your other option would be to just buy one. If it does only come with 64 bit Windows installed and you really want 32 bit, then worst comes to worst buy an OEM 32 bit Windows 7 license. It appears that Acer's support site does offer 32 bit drivers for both Windows XP and Windows 7, so you should be able to download the drivers that you would need.

[brainout]

smax013, on 24 October 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

brainout, on 24 October 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

I'm hoping Acer.com will see this post. I've been trying to get enough information to actually buy the Acer Travelmate 8573-9627 from some vendor, since it offers dual-hotload of Windows 7 Professional in either 32-bit or 64-bit, which the USER gets to choose when he gets the machine. So I keep writing vendors to see if they allow this, or whether they force 64-bit on me when I get the machine from them. So far, I either get no answer from the vendor, or get the answer that they FORCE the 64-bit configuration, so I can't change it back to 32-bit.

So, I wanted to go see if I could buy it directly from Acer, and make the choice myself when I get the machine from them. But you can't write Acer unless you are writing about a machine you already own. They have the worst website imaginable, no good way to compare models, no good way to get information, took me MONTHS to figure out the specs of the 8573 by tooling around the internet and their badly-designed website.

So how is someone going to learn enough to buy their product, and solve a problem like this one, if there is no way to contact Acer? So guess what? They just lost me as a customer, even though I adore my old Acer Aspire One I bought in 2008.

This is why PC sales are sluggish. Too hard to learn the specs, too hard to get information, too hard to go through their too-many models that are usually poorly configured, too hard to get answers, too hard to buy.

I'll just go get a no-name made from scratch, now. Dell's website is hard to use, so too ASUS, and Acer is even worse. Basta.

How about the "Acer Store" phone number: 1-800-910-2237

From the bottom of the page here: http://us-store.acer.com/default.aspx

FWIW, looking through the web version of the "Acer Store", it does not appear that they offer the model you want. By looking selecting that model number (TravelMater 8573), I only get a power supply listing...no listing for purchasing a computer itself.

BTW, are you sure "dual hotload OS" means what you think it means? This forum seems to imply that it just means that you get dual language versions installed and get to pick which language you want (i.e. rather than a separate model/SKU for English and French, both are available and you pick when you first boot it up): http://forums.ncix.c....php?id=1484617 I found at least one other link that suggested the same.

Your other option would be to just buy one. If it does only come with 64 bit Windows installed and you really want 32 bit, then worst comes to worst buy an OEM 32 bit Windows 7 license. It appears that Acer's support site does offer 32 bit drivers for both Windows XP and Windows 7, so you should be able to download the drivers that you would need.

Been there, done that. Yes, suddenly I can't get the 8573 references which only two weeks ago, were available on the website. After messing around with the Customer Service page, I finally got an email request through without having to put in a serial number. Will see what they say.

The sudden absence of the 8573, which was one of the best models I could find, is very distressing. So I'm still waiting for some of the Amazon vendors of it to reply to my query on getting 32-bit if I buy the machine. So far, Tiger Direct said I could get either one, but it was vague; antonline hasn't replied to my email for over a month, so I sent another; pcrush said they only provide it at 64-bit, which means I can't specify 32-bit anymore, and I've not heard back from the other vendors.

So maybe I'll go to System76, have them put Win7 Professional 32-bit on there, plus Debian. But obviously that won't be an Acer. Or, I'll go to DellAuction and get a Precision laptop with no OS. I sure won't go desktop, at this point.I wouldn't go to Win7 at all, but I want to help a few of my customers who are on Win7 and don't even know that's what they have. Most of my customers are professionals (i.e., physicians), so they aren't stupid. It tells you much, that they can't even figure out how to tell what OS they have.

MS shouldn't make people have to GUESS, if they want sales. It's criminal. It's too hard to buy a PC, for the same reason. Almost a full-time job, now, to figure out how it works, and Win8 only makes that problem worse. No wonder people have opted for tablets, that's about all they can understand, and even so, they spend their time very SLOWLY, guessing at how to swipe. It's like going down the rabbit hole with Alice, to use that stuff nowadays.

This post has been edited by brainout: 24 October 2012 - 10:04 PM

[brainout]

Dell is no better, and now they've WRECKED the 6530, no longer allowing it to have 8 GB of RAMM with Win7 32-bit. Yeah, it's much cheaper now, too, but useless! Win 7 Professional is supposed to be able to handle more than 4GB, don't they know that?

When I try to search the vendors, it's almost impossible to find 32-bit Windows 7 pre-installed. Almost nothing runs on 64-bit. Apparently Win8 is only 64-bit. None of the new Dell laptops will let you pick 32-bit Windows. And it's a pistol to search their site. So the blame for slow PC sales roundly centers on how DIFFICULT they make it to even FIND or SPECIFY the configuration you're looking for.

So basta. Will just get a machine without OS and put it on myself, or get one built by someone NOT among the major manufacturers. They keep creating configurations of computers which are HORRIBLE, either too slow, too little RAMM, or the wrong configuration of the OS which you don't get to change.

Pitiful. I've been searching since June. No longer.

This post has been edited by brainout: 25 October 2012 - 02:37 AM

[LiveBrianD]

32-bit Windows cannot handle more than a total of 4GB RAM. (This means ALL memory, so you often get left with 3.5GB usable system memory.) 2^32 bytes = 4GB.

[brainout]

LiveBrianD, on 25 October 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

32-bit Windows cannot handle more than a total of 4GB RAM. (This means ALL memory, so you often get left with 3.5GB usable system memory.) 2^32 bytes = 4GB.

But with a dual boot, I can have Linux address the remaining 4 GB. So that's why I want 8 GB, plus I can always later update to 64-bit once I've worked out the emulators. You need added RAMM for the emulators, VM, etc.

[LiveBrianD]

brainout, on 25 October 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 25 October 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

32-bit Windows cannot handle more than a total of 4GB RAM. (This means ALL memory, so you often get left with 3.5GB usable system memory.) 2^32 bytes = 4GB.

But with a dual boot, I can have Linux address the remaining 4 GB. So that's why I want 8 GB, plus I can always later update to 64-bit once I've worked out the emulators. You need added RAMM for the emulators, VM, etc.

Unless the Linux distro has PAE (providing a 36-bit mem address, 64GB max), it won't access more than 4GB.

As for dual boots, if booted into one OS, that OS gets ALL the RAM (and if it's 32-bit and lacks PAE, it'll ignore some of it). Other OSes you have installed, bit aren't booted into, aren't using ANY.

[brainout]

LiveBrianD, on 25 October 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

brainout, on 25 October 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 25 October 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

32-bit Windows cannot handle more than a total of 4GB RAM. (This means ALL memory, so you often get left with 3.5GB usable system memory.) 2^32 bytes = 4GB.

But with a dual boot, I can have Linux address the remaining 4 GB. So that's why I want 8 GB, plus I can always later update to 64-bit once I've worked out the emulators. You need added RAMM for the emulators, VM, etc.

Unless the Linux distro has PAE (providing a 36-bit mem address, 64GB max), it won't access more than 4GB.

As for dual boots, if booted into one OS, that OS gets ALL the RAM (and if it's 32-bit and lacks PAE, it'll ignore some of it). Other OSes you have installed, bit aren't booted into, aren't using ANY.

You can specify the addresses, Brian. So one set of chips will be for Linux, the other for Win7.

[LiveBrianD]

brainout, on 25 October 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 25 October 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

brainout, on 25 October 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 25 October 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

32-bit Windows cannot handle more than a total of 4GB RAM. (This means ALL memory, so you often get left with 3.5GB usable system memory.) 2^32 bytes = 4GB.

But with a dual boot, I can have Linux address the remaining 4 GB. So that's why I want 8 GB, plus I can always later update to 64-bit once I've worked out the emulators. You need added RAMM for the emulators, VM, etc.

Unless the Linux distro has PAE (providing a 36-bit mem address, 64GB max), it won't access more than 4GB.

As for dual boots, if booted into one OS, that OS gets ALL the RAM (and if it's 32-bit and lacks PAE, it'll ignore some of it). Other OSes you have installed, bit aren't booted into, aren't using ANY.

You can specify the addresses, Brian. So one set of chips will be for Linux, the other for Win7.

That's not how it works. If two people live in the same house but one happens to be gone for a week, buying food for 2 people will mean half of it gets wasted, right? It's the same concept with dual-booting - if you do that, ONLY the OS you're currently booted into is using the CPU, RAM, etc. The other OS is completely dormant, ONLY on the hard drive. Since you're not booted into that one, it CANNOT use ANY RAM, CPU, etc. It has ZERO impact on the OS you're running at the moment (aside from being on the hard drive). That said, if you are running a VM under that OS, since it and the host OS will be running simultaneously, then both will be consuming resources. (you'll still be constrained by the host OS's RAM limit though, if that's 32-bit)

[brainout]

LiveBrianD, on 25 October 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

brainout, on 25 October 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 25 October 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

brainout, on 25 October 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 25 October 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

32-bit Windows cannot handle more than a total of 4GB RAM. (This means ALL memory, so you often get left with 3.5GB usable system memory.) 2^32 bytes = 4GB.

But with a dual boot, I can have Linux address the remaining 4 GB. So that's why I want 8 GB, plus I can always later update to 64-bit once I've worked out the emulators. You need added RAMM for the emulators, VM, etc.

Unless the Linux distro has PAE (providing a 36-bit mem address, 64GB max), it won't access more than 4GB.

As for dual boots, if booted into one OS, that OS gets ALL the RAM (and if it's 32-bit and lacks PAE, it'll ignore some of it). Other OSes you have installed, bit aren't booted into, aren't using ANY.

You can specify the addresses, Brian. So one set of chips will be for Linux, the other for Win7.

That's not how it works. If two people live in the same house but one happens to be gone for a week, buying food for 2 people will mean half of it gets wasted, right? It's the same concept with dual-booting - if you do that, ONLY the OS you're currently booted into is using the CPU, RAM, etc. The other OS is completely dormant, ONLY on the hard drive. Since you're not booted into that one, it CANNOT use ANY RAM, CPU, etc. It has ZERO impact on the OS you're running at the moment (aside from being on the hard drive). That said, if you are running a VM under that OS, since it and the host OS will be running simultaneously, then both will be consuming resources. (you'll still be constrained by the host OS's RAM limit though, if that's 32-bit)

That CAN BE how it works. It's a question of assigning the chip addresses at boot, per OS. You can research it or not, as you choose. I don't want to argue the matter with you.

[LiveBrianD]

Why would you want to do that? If you're not booted into an OS, it isn't using any RAM. Period. Unless the OS you happen to be booted into has PAE, more than 4GB total WILL get wasted. It's like having one light bulb socket that provides 30W, and two 15W bulbs. You can't fit 2 bulbs in one socket, so you're still only going to get 15W of light. You may as well have a 15W socket, as you'll still be able to get the same amount of light out of it.

[brainout]

LiveBrianD, on 26 October 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Why would you want to do that? If you're not booted into an OS, it isn't using any RAM. Period. Unless the OS you happen to be booted into has PAE, more than 4GB total WILL get wasted. It's like having one light bulb socket that provides 30W, and two 15W bulbs. You can't fit 2 bulbs in one socket, so you're still only going to get 15W of light. You may as well have a 15W socket, as you'll still be able to get the same amount of light out of it.

Again, I don't wish to discuss it further, because it requires too much explanation you can already find on the internet; essentially you get the ability to operate two computers out of one in yet another way that is more secure, whether in 32-bit mode or 64-bit mode. You understand 64-bit, but not the 32-bit.

So maybe at some point, you'll examine the question or it will come up from someone else, and then you'll understand why I want more RAMM than a single OS on 32-bit, can itself address. Meanwhile, I hope you can understand that by getting that extra RAMM now -- which only costs another $100 -- I can change to 64-bit at any time, quickly.

This post has been edited by brainout: 26 October 2012 - 01:05 PM

[LiveBrianD]

I've seen those kinds of things before. They work using virtualization (where the 4GB RAM limit on a 32-bit OS applies to all of it), or by multiple sessions on the same OS (which I think might involve virtualizing the sessions). That also involves a 4GB RAM on ALL of it.

At the root of it, you can only run ONE OS on the ACTUAL hardware (if that's 32-bit, you're limited to 4GB for ALL of it). Anything else WILL involve virtualization.

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 26 October 2012 - 01:58 PM

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 25 October 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

brainout, on 25 October 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 25 October 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

32-bit Windows cannot handle more than a total of 4GB RAM. (This means ALL memory, so you often get left with 3.5GB usable system memory.) 2^32 bytes = 4GB.

But with a dual boot, I can have Linux address the remaining 4 GB. So that's why I want 8 GB, plus I can always later update to 64-bit once I've worked out the emulators. You need added RAMM for the emulators, VM, etc.

Unless the Linux distro has PAE (providing a 36-bit mem address, 64GB max), it won't access more than 4GB.

As for dual boots, if booted into one OS, that OS gets ALL the RAM (and if it's 32-bit and lacks PAE, it'll ignore some of it). Other OSes you have installed, bit aren't booted into, aren't using ANY.

Most Linux distros over 8 years old defaulted to running with PAE enabled for IA32 mode. They defaulted to not using PAE on newer distros with the assumption that you would use a 64bit OS as needed (no reason not to really). However, the kernel still supports PAE, and most distros have an option to activate it still, if not enabled by default.

Noting, the only reason they stopped defaulting to using PAE, was because of the addressable pool limitations it creates. Sometimes, it is better to have 3GB of ram addressable by a single program, than have all 4GB, but only address 2GB per program.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 26 October 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Why would you want to do that? If you're not booted into an OS, it isn't using any RAM. Period. Unless the OS you happen to be booted into has PAE, more than 4GB total WILL get wasted. It's like having one light bulb socket that provides 30W, and two 15W bulbs. You can't fit 2 bulbs in one socket, so you're still only going to get 15W of light. You may as well have a 15W socket, as you'll still be able to get the same amount of light out of it.

Brainout doesn't want to get into it, because that is a fallacy. As of the i386, the hardware implementations have existed to do exactly what is claimed here. Yes, technically, the CPU can actually run 2 separate OSes at once. However, the BIOS was never updated to handle such things. This is where UEFI comes in handy. Remember those machines that could give you a fully working Linux system the instant you hit the power button, while booting Windows in the background? How do you think they work? UEFI *can* handle that task. However, it is not available on consumer hardware in the fashion that Brainout wants to think it is. Eventually, the entire concept was shelved, as VirtualPC/VMware/etc made a much more workable solution that avoided many nasty problems.

[waldojim]

BTW - a quick and dirty solution to the problem is to find a botique builder. Nothing fancy, you don't need to pay too much for a machine. Go talk to the good people at Lenovo about a ThinkPad line machine (I said ThinkPad for a reason BTW), and they will do anything they can to help. Need a decent contact? Let me know, and I will pass along the name of my agent - he is a very good man that will do what he can. Lenovo even still ships ThinkPad machines with DOS support.

Or visit Sager notebooks, IbuyPower, CyberPower, etc. They all sell custom built laptops. Most of the custom vendors don't have the same rigid standards of the big cheap-o makers like Acer and HP.

[brainout]

LiveBrianD, on 26 October 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

I've seen those kinds of things before. They work using virtualization (where the 4GB RAM limit on a 32-bit OS applies to all of it), or by multiple sessions on the same OS (which I think might involve virtualizing the sessions). That also involves a 4GB RAM on ALL of it.

At the root of it, you can only run ONE OS on the ACTUAL hardware (if that's 32-bit, you're limited to 4GB for ALL of it). Anything else WILL involve virtualization.

No, Brian. There are other solutions. Again, as I said before I'm getting ZaReason to build me the machine I want.